From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E91BBAF for ; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:04 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AkUDAD4y6kzCpx5ei2dsb2JhbACiXRUBAQEKCwoYIr1BhUsEjWwa X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,237,1288566000"; d="scan'208";a="67842666" Received: from sucre.univ-orleans.fr ([194.167.30.94]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2010 18:08:03 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sucre.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BF294392; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from sucre.univ-orleans.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sucre.univ-orleans.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nR-uqoIRr8rb; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (smtps.univ-orleans.fr [194.167.30.152]) by sucre.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40EB94302; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.186] (unknown [213.144.210.93]) by smtps.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9998F36E60; Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Is OCaml fast? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Rajchenbach-Teller In-Reply-To: <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 18:08:01 +0100 Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <1290434674.16005.354.camel@thinkpad> <20101122180203.2126497sau3zukgb@webmail.in-berlin.de> To: "Oliver Bandel" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 univ-orleans:01 bandel:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 ocaml:01 wrote:01 oliver:01 compilers:01 caml-list:01 shootout:02 variable:06 environment:10 maybe:10 think:13 I can confirm that old code-snippets were removed (and that both faster = solutions and environment variable tweaks were rejected). On Nov 22, 2010, at 6:02 PM, Oliver Bandel wrote: > Zitat von "Gerd Stolpmann" : > [...] >> (I remember Ocaml was #1 >> at the shootout a few years ago, faster than C.) So maybe a good >> opportunity to post better Ocaml solutions there? > [...] >=20 > Yes I also remember that. > I hope that the new OCaml compilers did not > make OCaml lessperformance by enhancing other features. >=20 > And I don't realy think so. >=20 > But were the old code-snippets emoved, or what was going on, > that OCaml degraded that much? >=20